There are two takes on how Farmers will respond to lower prices.

Tonight on Market plus Ted Seifried said..

”With lower prices.. much like 2017, 18 and 19.. farmers will plant more acres.. to grow more bushels in order to maintain income.. I think this will bring acres out of the woodwork.”

http://www.iowapbs.org/shows/mtom/market-plus/clip/10820/market-plus-ted-seifried

on the other hand DTN has an article where a farmer in Iowa wants to down size with lower prices..

 https://www.dtnpf.com/agriculture/web/ag/crops/article/2024/02/09/regenerative-practices-restore-soil

… “Watkins acts as a consultant to many landowners. He says a fundamental change is needed in the way many growers view revenue and return on investment (ROI), and the difference between net and gross income.

"I'm amazed at how many people don't think that way," he says, recalling consulting with various landowners on boosting overall productivity of their farms -- sometimes by reducing the number of acres they plant.

As an example, he speaks of a neighbor who was planting an unproductive part of his farm to corn each year. Regardless of how many inputs, the top yield remained about 25 bushels per acre.

"Crop inputs are $500 to $600 per acre, and with 25-bushel-per-acre corn and $5 market prices, that amounts up to a $475 loss on each acre," he explains. "Now, in CRP, that land would command nearly $300 an acre; so instead of losing $475, the grower would have a positive $300 -- or a total financial improvement on poor-producing acres of $775. The overall productivity of that farm would improve significantly by taking less-productive acres out of production."

He says such examples come from applying geospatial examination to a landowner's field maps. "If we see a bright red area on a yield map, and we know those are perennially low-producing, we have to ask, 'Why are we farming this part of the field?'"

Watkins says he's also taking that approach to Pinhook Farm by becoming much smaller and highly diversified and efficient. By doing this, he hopes to show the drive for maximum production isn't always the guaranteed success formula many believe it to be.

"When we were first starting out, I realized I needed more forage for my cattle, but I didn't want to put more land in production to do that. I liked to walk along the streams, near the trees, and felt much more at home there than standing in the middle of a cash-grain field. That's when we began trying to restore the prairie system. I just had to figure out how to make it economically viable." 

hmmm.

So who’s correct?